Trends in the use of benefit sanctions – and their impacts on the individuals who receive them – have been subject to widespread media coverage and debate recently. ‘Hungry Britain?’ – an episode of Panorama aired on BBC 1 on 3rd March (and available here) – raised the question of whether increasing numbers of food banks in the UK[1] are the result of imprudent decisions, poor budgeting skills and misplaced priorities on the part of individuals or the result of welfare reform, in particular the increasing use and stringency of out-of-work benefit sanctions.

Dr David Webster of the University of Glasgow featured on the programme, describing his work monitoring trends in the application of benefit sanctions (under Job Seekers Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance) over time. He has been a vocal critic of the increased use of sanctions over recent years and you can read more about his perspective by downloading his most recent briefing on DWP data here[2]:

Earlier this year Webster also submitted three lots of evidence to the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee in their consideration of the role of Job Centre Plus in the reformed welfare system. You can download his submissions here (Evidence 12 Sep 2013, Supplementary Evidence 8 Aug 2013, Further Supplementary Evidence 20 Nov 2013) or alternatively, all submissions of evidence here. The Work and Pensions Committee report drawing on this evidence concluded that Job Centre Plus “needs to do more to balance increasingly strict benefit conditionality rules with effective, in-depth employment support for those claimants who need it” (p3) and suggested that “many claimants have been referred for a sanction inappropriately or in circumstances in which common sense would suggest that discretion should have been applied by Jobcentre staff” (p26). You can read the report in full here.

This month also saw the release of a Policy Exchange report ‘Smarter Sanctions’, which describes sanctions as an “integral part of a system which needs to enforce compliance with schemes to help claimants back to work, and to ensure fairness in the system by removing benefits from those who do not make reasonable attempts to find employment” (p8). It does, nevertheless, view the current system as insufficiently responsive – too lenient on ‘repeat offenders’ and too stringent in cases where non-compliance with conditions may be a ‘genuine mistake’. Policy Exchange thus propose reforms to make the system more efficient, more responsive and fairer.

These debates are central to the research questions we will explore in this 5 year research programme ‘Welfare Conditionality: Sanctions, support and behaviour change’, which aims to explore the effectiveness and ‘ethicality’ of welfare conditionality across a range of social policy areas. How effective are conditional welfare arrangements at securing positive behaviour change, for instance, in getting people back into sustainable employment? And what are the circumstances in which conditionality may, or may not, be ethically justified? You can read more about welfare conditionality here and more about our programme of research here.

Beth Watts, March 2014

UPDATE: On 25th March, David Webster released a reply to the Policy Exchange ‘Smarter Sanctions’ report:

Conference

Latest Comments

You also have an exact and clear idea of how all this affects people who are actually caught up in it. Unfortunately, the people who are responsible for these policies and decisions have never had to deal with it so there is no understanding and no empathy. We are losing our humanity in today's society.

Why would people then bother to make a home and spend money on it? We have to get away from this mindset that has now taken hold that Social Housing.....hate that term, is just temporary to suit your immediate needs. People should not have to up sticks all the time because a child gets older etc. When the old system was in place ie older people with larger homes than they needed they were offered incentives to downsize. In the 90's more Older peoples accommodation was built. Bungalows, Sheltered Housing etc. People were given help with removal costs. This has all changed. To make someone move from a home they have been in for years is cruel if it is not voluntary. I have been in my home since it was built. My daughter moved out as she should when grown up to make her own home. So after 23 years with roots well and truly down, should I be made to move? I have my granddaughter to stay. My daughter's room is now for her and was also an office when I worked from home. I could not fit my home into a small 1 bedroom flat. I do not want people living above me. This idea that if you live in Social Housing it is just accommodation but if you own it is your home is totally wrong. My parents moved willingly into Sheltered Housing but the change affected them drastically. My dad became stressed and ill and died a year later and my mother never settled and died a few years later. This was because they uprooted themselves and left their home and all the memories and familiar surroundings. Unfortunately like most issues these days, the humanity is being taken out of it.

Great resources on linking welfare sanction and conditionally and key social policy considerations with human rights principles (including dignity, non-discrimination). These considerations have a huge impact in narratives around poverty and vulnerability, and should be closely looked at by policy decision-makers and street-level bureaucrats.

Ok. I don’t agree with the bedroom tax but I do feel it would be a better option if housing rules were changed. For example why do they wait until kids are over 10 until giving families two bedrooms?
Then I also think housing should be fit for purpose so I believe when they move someone from a one bedroom to a 2 or 3 it should be with the understanding only until the children grow up and leave home then they should have their Tennancy moved back to something more suitable again like a one bedroom.

A fine well written and clear example of what is broken in our welfare system.
They are asking for submission for the next select committee meeting on welfare and I would submit this post if it were my choice.
It is a vicious cycle for some who have no chance of finding work however hard they might try. It is the employers who ultimately make the decision if employees are fit and ready to work, not the DWP.
Having a budget of £2 per day for food , job searching activities, keeping your appearance and strength up, and having to jump through hoops and tick boxes on all those strength zapping, soul destroying schemes courses and programs that do nothing but heap yet even more pressure and stress.
The affects of stress on both mental and physical health are well documented and nothing can be more stressful than not knowing week in, week out, that your hand to mouth existence is constantly at risk.
Sanctions are death sentences for some, no getting away from that fact, those charged with administrating the regime should hang their heads in shame, it is those who should make the stand to bring about change.
Or do they deceive themselves into believing long time shirker Jim who they sanctioned last month and who has not been seen again at the local JCP, Is now enjoying the fruits of his labor thanks to the Works Coaches helpful push they so desperately needed.
So clearly sanctions work and a good done job done by me, high five everyone.